Let's Look At Pathfinder 2's Weapons!

Paizo has a new Pathfinder 2nd Edition blog up, and this time we're taking a look at weapons! We find out about the Simple/Martial/Exotic scale, weapon traits, critical specialization, weapon groups, and weapon quality.

​

You can read the full article here, but here are the highlights:

• Simple weapons have smaller damage dice, while exotic weapons have additional abilities.
• The simple/martial/exotic scale deals with power and flexibility rather than being a regional descriptor.
• Weapon traits --
  • Greatswords can switch between piercing and slashing damage; d12 damage
  • Bo staff is d8, has reach, parry, and trip, plus the "monk" trait
  • Glaive is d8, has reach, "deadly d8" (extra d8s on a critical), forceful (builds up momentum doing extra damage on iterative attacks)
  • Twin weapons like saw-toothed safer do more damage if you have two
  • Backswing weapons like great club gain accuracy after a miss
  • Backstabber weapons like the dog slicer to more damage to flat footed targets
  • Agile weapons like the short sword decrease penalties for multiple attacks
  • Finesse weapons like the rapier use your Dex mod for attacks
  • Two-handed weapons like the bastard sword do more damage with two hands
• Critical specialisation is an unlockable weapon ability which has a special effect.
  • Swords make the target flat-footed
  • Spears weaken the target's attacks
  • Axes damage adjacent targets
  • Daggers cause persistent bleed damage
  • Clubs knock the target 10 feet
• Weapon quality goes from poor, standard, expert, master, legendary and grants -1 to +3 bonus/penalty to hit.

 

[Parmandur]

I suppose if you repeat something enough times it becomes true?

It isn't the case in PF1, and you'd know that if you played it. It isn't even the case in Starfinder. So I don't exactly get why it seems to be the case here.

I've played 3.x and it was true there, so I don't see why it wouldn't be for PF1.

It is a game that rewards system mastery of builds.

 

[Charlaquin]

A thought re: weapons that require two hands (like the greatsword) vs weapons with the two-hand property (like the bastard sword). The blog only says weapons with the two-hand property deal more damage when used in two-hands. It doesn’t say how that damage is increased. What if instead of increasing the damage die like the Versatile property in 5e, the Two-hand property is how they denote that some weapons multiply strength mod to damage when weilded in two hands. Then they can slap that property on weapons like the bastard sword that only require one hand, on weapons like the greatsword that require two hands, and could even leave it off of some weapons that require two hands like the bo staff.

 

[Yaarel]

Probably the staff (bo stick) can count as two light finesse weapons, one in each hand, because of using both sides of the staff, rapidly. Probably good for parrying defense bonus too.

The staff is an archetypal weapon that − like the sword − can enjoy some plot protection by making it an excellent choice.

 

[Arilyn]

Probably /instead/ of TWFing is the only way it'd make sense.

'Backswing' as an attribute of a club makes some sense. 'Backswing' making you hit better after a miss, not so much. Backswing is the path before the attack, no? 'Follow-through' that after...

A small, agile, close-in weapon, would gain more /benefit/ in attacking a vulnerable foe, narrowing the gap in it's damage potential relative to the biggest baddest weapons?

It's amazing, sometimes, how often you have to repeat things that are unequivocally true: like D&D (PF is a clone of a D&D ed) is a wildly complex game. Yes, it is.

It was also originally a wargame - it said so right on the cover of 0D&D. It didn't much change when it went from 'wargame' to 'RPG,' either.



Complex, yes. Wargameyness, well, it didn't take much to append the mini handbook to 3e. 2e really struck me as the only ed to really try to distance itself from wargaming roots. 5e has pretensions of doing so, with it's "TotM by default" line, but doesn't do anything to back it up.
I'm not sure if that's the proud-parent effect, or the anyone who disagrees with me is stupid effect, or a hefty helping of both. ;P

Seriously, though, everytime someone acknowledges the complexity of an RPG, someone brings kids into it. I've run Champions!, arguably among the most complex RPGs anyone's ever contemplated designing, for kids younger than 10. It's just not evidence of simplicity.

It is evidence of fairly good cat-herding skills, though.

Nope, just frustration at the "PF is so complex" argument. It really isn't that hard. Messy? Maybe. Lots of choice? Yep. The only really frustrating part is GMing it, cause of the ridiculously long monster descriptions. That part is overly complex for sure. That's the part that has got me over to 13th Age.
But playing? Not a big deal.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nope, just frustration at the "PF is so complex" argument. It really isn't that hard. Messy? Maybe. Lots of choice? Yep.
But playing? Not a big deal.

I'm similarly frustrated with the misplaced praise of 5e as 'simple.' (If, indeed, praise it is meant to be.) Sure, 3.5 is more complex than 5e, but they're both still D&D, and both still plenty complex. PF's 'complexity' is fed by being the most lavishly-supported RPG in history, AFAICT, so, just maybe, there's some sour grapes to the 'toooo complex!' complaints.

The only really frustrating part is GMing it, cause of the ridiculously long monster descriptions. That part is overly complex for sure. That's the part that has got me over to 13th Age.

Nod. I'm running 5e & 4e and I've run 13A & would have not trouble running it fairly regularly - not to mention plenty of other games, but for lack players who have so as much heard of them. But 3.x? Nope, I'll happily play it if I'm invited and can come up with a cool/viable character that fits the campaign, but I'd rather not ever have to run it again.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm similarly frustrated with the misplaced praise of 5e as 'simple.' Sure, 3.5 is more complex than 5e, but they're both still D&D, and both still plenty complex. PF's 'complexity' is fed by being the most lavishly-supported RPG in history, AFAICT, so, just maybe, there's some sour grapes to the 'toooo complex!' complaints.

Nod. I'm running 5e & 4e and I've run 13A & would have not trouble running it fairly regularly - not to mention plenty of other games, but for lack players who have so much heard of them. But 3.x? Nope, I'll play it if I'm invited and can come up with a cool/viable character that fits the campaign, but I'd rather not ever have to run it again.

Most of the people that I know who play 5E consider it quite challenging and complex, but they find it worthwhile to put the effort into it to play. It is certainly not a simple game, by most any measure.

PF1, nor it seems PF2, is not onerously complicated, but the game certainly plays to a particular style.

 

[Mistwell]

The numbers are bellcurve related, I believe (the 5E Proficiency bonus specifically replaces the average of the playtest Proficiency dice pool mechanic).

And yes, PF2 is very complex, crunchy wargame: it's their jam.

I suppose if you repeat something enough times it becomes true?

It isn't the case in PF1, and you'd know that if you played it. It isn't even the case in Starfinder. So I don't exactly get why it seems to be the case here.

Paizo's stated up-front goals for PF2 include each of the following as specified bullet points: Easier to Play, Clean, Modular Information-Based Design, Simplified Actions.

Between the Healing spell preview and this Weapons preview, they are not achieving those goals.

They should decide if they want "very complex" or "easier clean and simplified". Right now they appear to be...all over the place. I personally would prefer they actually meet those stated goals better. If not, ah well, I just won't play this version.

 

[Morrus]

I'm similarly frustrated with the misplaced praise of 5e as 'simple.'

Well, the emotive terms aside, 5E certainly has a considerably lower rules overhead than Pathfinder. That's served it very well, but that doesn't mean there isn't a decent market for those who enjoy a more rules-dense D&D-ish fantasy system.

 

[Sunseeker]

Paizo's stated up-front goals for PF2 include each of the following as specified bullet points: Easier to Play, Clean, Modular Information-Based Design, Simplified Actions.

Between the Healing spell preview and this Weapons preview, they are not achieving those goals.

They should decide if they want "very complex" or "easier clean and simplified". Right now they appear to be...all over the place. I personally would prefer they actually meet those stated goals better. If not, ah well, I just won't play this version.

EXACTLY! Thank you. This is what I've been getting at.

 

[Shasarak]

I like what they are doing with these new Weapon mechanics. It adds a lot of design space as well as giving weapon users something juicy to play with. I certainly prefer this to the old boring 1d4/1d6/1d8 weapon system previous editions of DnD used.

I always liked Weapon Quality from back in the day and would like to see how this interacts with the magic weapon system.

I did laugh at some of these "explanations" though.